The Divergent Anarcho-utopian Discourses of the Open Source Software Movement Dale A. Bradley Brock University Abstract: The discourse informing open source programming is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the way in which its ideological positions are translated into practical actions. It is argued that the initial anarcho-utopian move initiated by Richard Stallman’s GNU Project and Free Software Foundation is currently being transformed into an organizational utopia in the form of the largely Linux-based open source movement. The utopian impulse evident in open source software development is therefore addressed from the perspective that the promises of liberation that inform its anarchy-inspired politics may be undermined by efforts to integrate its communal programming practices into existing market hegemonies. Résumé : Le discours sur la programmation libre est important à plusieurs égards, notamment dans la manière dont ses positions idéologiques se transfor- ment en actions concrètes. Cet article soutient que le mouvement anarcho-uto- pique lancé par Richard Stallman avec son projet GNU et la Fondation pour le logiciel libre se transforme actuellement en une utopie organisationnelle prenant la forme d’un Mouvement du logiciel libre qui se fonde en grande partie sur le système Linux. Cet article adopte la perspective qu’on risque aujourd’hui de perdre de vue l'impulsion utopique qui était évidente dans le développement initial de logiciels libres. On risque en outre d’oublier les promesses de liberté qui sous-tendent les politiques du mouvement originel inspirées par l’anarchie. Keywords: Electronic culture (Internet-based); Cultural studies; Technology theory; Computer science The current discourse surrounding the rapid development and deployment of free/ libre and open source software (FLOSS)1 is framed by appeals to, and tensions among, various anarchic forms of organization and is also underwritten by an undeniably utopian impulse. The “openness” of open source software is informed by concerns both practical (freedom from oppressive software production and licensing/copyright schemes) and ideological (the valorization of anarchic organi- zational forms, communal production, and public property rights). While often characterized as a cohesive movement, the FLOSS community and its products Dale A. Bradley is an Assistant Professor in Communications, Popular Culture, and Film at Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1. E-mail: [email protected]. Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 30 (2005) 585-611 ©2005 Canadian Journal of Communication Corporation 585 586 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 30 (4) are actually an amalgam of different operating systems and software applications produced by myriad programmers working with different goals in mind. The broadest and most obvious division within this community is between Richard Stallman’s Free Software Foundation (FSF)—which seeks to make computing resources widely available to the public via the production and distribution of public domain software—and promoters of the much more business-friendly Open Source Initiative (OSI), which seeks to integrate open source practices into existing market practices and hegemonies. In spite of this basic division, a shared anarcho-utopian tendency underwrites discourses on both sides of the FLOSS divide. What I want to trace here is a general trajectory from ideological position to practical action as it relates to differing forms of utopianism and anarchy. The central argument will be that the initial utopian anarcho-socialist challenge initi- ated by Stallman’s GNU2 Project and FSF exhibits a subtle but significantly dif- ferent admixture of anarcho-utopianism than that of the OSI. This difference occurs more at the level of discourse than of practical action, inasmuch as both the FSF and OSI belong to, and provide an important degree of guidance for, the broader FLOSS movement. Producing freely licensed programming code and routing around the user restrictions imposed by proprietary software giants such as Microsoft remains the common goal of the FLOSS community, regardless of its internal divisions. I will therefore use “FLOSS” to characterize both the open source movement and its programming methodologies in their entirety. One should remain cognizant, however, of the fact that the FLOSS community is not homogeneous. It includes not only the FSF and OSI, but also a number of other organizations. That said, the purpose of the current project is to tease out and address the anarcho-utopian tendencies present in the FLOSS discourse while simultaneously foregrounding the similarities and differences between two of its vanguard organizations (the FSF and OSI). A certain degree of generalization is therefore necessary in order to distinguish the FLOSS movement from the tradi- tional proprietary software industry. Due to the detail required to address the anarcho-utopian differences between the FSF and OSI, I will only specifically refer to these organizations where they diverge in terms of their discourse on, or deployment of, FLOSS principles and goals. I have chosen the FSF and OSI as exemplars of FLOSS for two simple rea- sons. Firstly, they are two of the most significant organizations with regard to FLOSS. The OSI has steadily built a reputation since its 1997 inception as a primary advocacy group for FLOSS, and it has made significant inroads into cor- porate computing via its promotion of FLOSS as a viable alternative to propri- etary software. While not the first instance of a community of open source programmers, the FSF has been frequently acknowledged to be the first such com- munity to actively take FLOSS principles into the mainstream of computing (Ray- mond, 1999a; Williams, 2002). In addition, the software licence put forward by the FSF (the “General Public License,” or “GPL”) and its variants has become the very heart of the FLOSS movement, both technically (in terms of software distri- Bradley / Anarcho-utopian Discourses of the Open Source Software Movement 587 bution) and ideologically (as the first clear statement of user rights as understood and promoted by the FLOSS community). Secondly, the founders of the FSF (Richard Stallman) and OSI (Eric Raymond) have both taken it upon themselves to play an evangelical role with regard to FLOSS. Stallman is resolutely against proprietary software and tends to advocate a more socialist version of FLOSS, whereas Raymond is more accommodating of business interests and promotes an approach that is more libertarian. As I hope to demonstrate, the differences and similarities between the anarcho-utopian discourses and practices exhibited by Stallman’s FSF and Ray- mond’s OSI are a matter of degree, rather than kind. Stallman tends to be more concerned with achieving the utopian goal of distributing software unfettered by proprietary licensing regimes. He is somewhat less concerned with giving the control of software development to an anarchically organized community of pro- grammers for fear that his utopian social goals will become subservient to the technical aspects of programming. Raymond, on the other hand, tends to view Stallman’s utopianism as laudable but ultimately counterproductive when it comes to actually deploying FLOSS in existing corporately dominated software markets. Raymond thus tends to foreground the role of anarchic organization in the development and distribution of technically superior and less expensive FLOSS projects and applications, while playing down (but not ignoring) the utopian elements of FLOSS discourse and practice. But it is not simply that Raymond provides the anarchy to Stallman’s utopia in terms of the anarcho-utopi- anism of FLOSS. Rather, the particular versions of anarchy and utopia that each implicitly promotes in his work—both written and computational—is what proves to be significant. Stallman’s social anarchism leads him to advocate for freely distributed software as a common good for society. His utopianism is thus framed by an appeal to realize the ethical and moral dimensions of software devel- opment and distribution in order to produce a better world. Raymond’s libertarian anarchism is exhibited in a tendency to pursue FLOSS as a means by which to free programmers and users from the artificial constraints of copyright regimes in order to enable a freer environment for the development and distribution of tech- nically superior software. The FLOSS movement as a whole encompasses the anarcho-utopian approaches and ideals of both the FSF and OSI. Rather than characterize these two organizations as two fundamentally divergent or oppositional approaches, it is perhaps more useful to think of them as occupying two ends of the FLOSS spec- trum. The FSF is more committed to provoking changes in software development by way of an appeal to the social use of information technology. The OSI is more concerned with implementing the technical practices that emerge from this activity within everyday computer use. The key, then, to the utopian impulse in the FLOSS movement is thus the manner by which it proposes and seeks to reformu- late the social relations of software production as an anarchic organizational form. It is for this reason that I characterize the sociopolitical discourse of the FLOSS movement as “anarcho-utopian.” 588 Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol. 30 (4) In order to unpack this complex set of relations I will first provide some back- ground information on open source and the hacker ethic that informs it. Following a brief overview of the roles played by Stallman and Raymond in the formation of the FSF and OSI (respectively), I will undertake a more detailed analysis not only of the divergent anarcho-utopian discourses revealed in the rivalry between the FSF and OSI, but also of their points of connection and co-operation in relation to the wider FLOSS movement. The similarities between Stallman and Raymond are profound and bind them to the same basic cause: they both promote FLOSS, view proprietary software licensing as the enemy, and believe that a better world (of some sort) will result from the widespread adoption of FLOSS development.